There's a McQueen documentary called The Essence of Cool. Probably the most perfect title ever

__________________
"[We must] abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

"We are told that talent creates its own opportunities. Yet, it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but its own talents, as well."

I've got so many films on my hard drive, I'll never have time to watch them. Probably a couple hundred from the 20's-50's. I've pretty much put off bookreading the past 9 months to try and make a dent - those James Joyce books are eyeballin' me right now.

I am. Die hard, in fact. And that's exactly why I have trouble with the film. With how high Tarantino's raised the bar in his career, Django falls conspicuously short.

Literally everything he's done since Pulp Fiction is better with the exception of Death Proof, and what's more, everything is significantly better, IMO.

Can you elaborate any? What did you not like about Django? I personally thought that it boiled down and perfected all the things I like about a Tarantino film...

Verbose, but well written, dialogue. Eccentric performances. Great cinematography. Excellent use of music. Wild, over the top violence. Huge amounts of fun.

Really, I couldn't have enjoyed it much more than I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

I can't even express how much I love that fucking movie. Actually watched it again a few nights ago along with Inception so I could pit the two top Nolan films head-to-head to determine my #1, and The Dark Knight Rises took home the belt.

For me, I think Batman Begins is laughably atrocious until about an hour in when we finally get to Gotham and Bale is in full-on Batman mode, but even there, it's a really rough draft.

Batman Begins is far from perfect, but I am a sucker for the origin story (I LOVE all the scenes with Morgan Freeman showing off all the tech, esp the Batmobile), so I let a lot of stuff slide in that one. Also, I really enjoyed Scarecrow as a villain and thought Falconi was great too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

The Dark Knight is exceptional, I really have very few complaints and I don't feel The Dark Knight Rises is better in the sense that it finally sewed up the myriad holes hindering The Dark Knight. I just feel that, everything that was great about The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises did it better and then some.

I couldn't disagree more.

One thing that Dark Knight did better (and better than any other comic movie ever, IMO) was the villain. Ledger elevated that film like a mu'fucker. His Joker was electric and a HUGE reason that film was so successful. Immeasurably more charismatic and interesting than Bane & Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

But Liam Neeson speaking exclusively in fortune cookie all throughout Batman Begins wasn't?

His timing was no less impeccable in Batman Begins when he showed up behind Katie Holmes when those two thugs were going to kill her or when the Scarecrow showed up again for no fucking reason at all in the beginning of The Dark Knight (and about this particular entrance let me point out that Batman, the most conspicuous non-super hero of all the superheroes, then proceeds to bend the barrel of a gun ).

To say this of The Dark Knight Rises but not of Batman Begins makes zero sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

Remember, Kiwi: It is a Batman movie, and if you're cool with that for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, then there's no reason you shouldn't be cool with it for The Dark Knight Rises.

As far as Neesons character goes, yes, it was cheezy, but it was part of the origin story (which as I said, I'm a sucker for) so again, it gets a pass.

Completely illogical, but there you have it. I love the origin story.

As to all the other "coincidences" etc, I can't really tell you why I bought them in the first two films, but not in the TDKR. During the first two, I can suspend my disbelief but not in the third.

And believe, I am very aware of the fact that it's a "Batman" movie, so I'm more than willing to make allowances and suspend my disbelief. But I just don't feel like TDKR helped me at all. Maybe it was partly that it was taking itself so seriously? I dunno.

I really wish I had liked that film... but I didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

This is beyond nitpicking. If you held hard and fast to this criterion of "too pretty," you wouldn't be able to watch any movies at all that weren't Italian Neorealism with ugly non-actors (with no make-up because the Italians couldn't even afford to record live sound) shoved in front of cameras

I don't believe it is nitpicking in regards to the guards exiting the ground clean shaven and healthy. I think that's a lapse in story telling. I'm not saying the actors were too "hollywoody" or "too goodlooking" or anything of the sort.

They were meant to be stuck underground for a significant amount of time with very little food or other resources. They should be scraggly as fuck, dehydrated, unshaven etc, but (from my recollection) they weren't at all. In fact, they seemed fine.

Not just an aesthetic issue, but a story telling one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

You clearly need a rewatch anyway, so you might as well to both better understand the film and better appreciate it, though with how nonchalantly you've dismissed the film, perhaps "rewatch" isn't accurate: You need to give the film a real first viewing.

You're absolutely right. I need to rewatch. Nolan's back catalogue has earned at least that much from me.

However, I didn't mean to give off a "nonchalant" vibe. It's not like I went in not expecting much and didn't pay attention. I wasn't quick coming to this conclusion about TDKR either. It's not like I left the theatre saying "Meh, that was shit. Forget it." I loved the first two and was looking forward to the third very, very much. I went in with high expectations (always dangerous) and was disappointed. I left the theatre feeling vaguely unsatisfied and it wasn't really until I thought back over the movie I noticed the inconsistencies etc more sharply.

We'll see how it holds up on future viewings.

__________________
"The common denominator of the Universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility and murder." - Werner Herzog

I've got so many films on my hard drive, I'll never have time to watch them. Probably a couple hundred from the 20's-50's. I've pretty much put off bookreading the past 9 months to try and make a dent - those James Joyce books are eyeballin' me right now.

I'm having the same problem. Trying to find a happy medium for my free time between movies/comics/other reading

I've got so many films on my hard drive, I'll never have time to watch them. Probably a couple hundred from the 20's-50's.

That's light weight, baby!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonged Kiwi

Can you elaborate any?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

That whole Leo/Waltz death scene was awful and from there the film completely nosedived. My past posts on the subject:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigh GunRanger

It's like asking why does Mr. White shoot Mr. Orange, or why Aldo still gives Landa the swastika, or why Bill still walks those 5 steps. Tarantino is about men with codes, and principles, even if they're not advantageous to their positions. He ain't shaking that man's hands. Candie is scum, and debasing Beethoven was final straw. Plus there is the factor that Schultz was indeed a sore loser, and the fact that he was one-upped in his charade bruised his pride a bit.

For me, the problem wasn't that he did it, but how he did it, the silly, acquiescently suicidal style of it. I thought he would've been more cunning and at least gone about it in a strategic way that would've given himself and Django the best possible opportunity to get the upper hand in the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Speeit

"It doesnt seem like something the character would do", after it's foreshadowed for the whole movie.

It was foreshadowed in the sense that you knew he was going to kill DiCaprio. But it was not foreshadowed that he would do it like an idiot with no thought to his or Django's survival. It is not a logical progression of his behavior as seen previously, but a radical break, and these two positions---either it's a logical progression that had already been foreshadowed or it's a radical break as a result of the stress of dealing with DiCaprio---are not compatible and your equivocation weakens your position here [...] Waltz's character, while impulsive, was never carelessly so, and the break from calculating assassin to impulsive egomaniac was not as logical and smooth as some of us would've preferred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Speeit

Shultz begins to crack around the Mandingo fight.

I'm looking forward to my second viewing so I can focus more specifically on his particular character arc, but just going off of my first and only viewing, I can't accept the jump from when he says to Django that he has no intention of letting him kill the two of them just so he can get the egotistical satisfaction of "getting at" DiCaprio to his being totally cool with letting himself and Django get killed just to "get at" DiCaprio. He's telling Django not to antagonize DiCaprio to satisfy his own egotistical desires, then all of a sudden that's exactly what he's doing!

Not only is it hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy that wasn't built up enough. The shift was too quick and severe, and since, like Bob Gray pointed out, this was such a crucial scene, it's that much more obvious and difficult to forgive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Speeit

He's not used to absolving control of a situation

I agree with you on this, but I disagree with the way lack of control manifests in his behavior. The way I see it, he can't tolerate not being in control, so he has to do everything in his power to regain control. . .until all of a sudden he decides to stop trying to regain control and just commit suicide and leave Django to the wolves.

His suicidal action doesn't follow based on what we've already seen of his personality. It's one thing if he would've yelled for Django to move, shot DiCaprio, but couldn't keep from getting shot by James Remar. At least that would've shown that his cunning assassin mind was still functioning. He would've had a plan, as he always did, it just wouldn't have worked. That would've made sense plot-wise and character-wise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Speeit

There would be no retribution for Candie's acts of horror if Shultz did not take it upon himself to kill him.

Agreed, but his need to kill DiCaprio in no way mandates a need to do it in as silly and unstrategic a fashion as possible, and that's the sticking point. Not that he did it, but how he did it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

With the music, it felt more like he was paying homage to cheesy TV Westerns rather than the '60s/'70s Spaghetti Westerns, which contributed to a more goofy and campy feel that I would've preferred he eschew. There was no operatic/epic Leone to be found. It's in all of his non-Westerns, then he finally gets to a real Western, and this is the move he makes?

The whole movie was really perplexing like that. Never have I had so many problems with one of his films, nor have I ever had so much trouble understanding the thought process that went into a lot of what ended up on the screen. FFS, I still say Kill Bill Volume 2 is his Western masterpiece. The scope, the feel, the look, the characters, the drama. Absolutely shits all over Django in every possible way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonged Kiwi

Batman Begins is far from perfect, but I am a sucker for the origin story

I'm a sucker for origin stories, too. . .provided they don't suck

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonged Kiwi

Also, I really enjoyed Scarecrow as a villain and thought Falconi was great too.

From both a character and an actor perspective, I thought they both were weak as hell, and in a movie like that, a compelling villain is almost as important as a compelling hero, and the infinite superiority of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is thanks in no small part to the excellent villains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonged Kiwi

One thing that Dark Knight did better (and better than any other comic movie ever, IMO) was the villain. Ledger elevated that film like a mu'fucker. His Joker was electric and a HUGE reason that film was so successful. Immeasurably more charismatic and interesting than Bane & Co.

From an acting perspective, Ledger was unbelievable, but from a character/story perspective, I hated The Joker, on top of which, the complete lack of physical threat contributed to a complete apathy whenever Batman came face-to-face with him. All I think whenever I watch it is, "Just kill this doofus already." Batman makes that ordeal so much harder on himself and everybody else than it needed to be, and while that's an important element in the overall theme of the film, I didn't feel it was incorporated into the narrative as well as it could've/should've been, added to which, the fact that he could've ended things at any time totally destroyed the fear and suspense that Bane ratcheted up like crazy.

Now I can forgive all that very easily because The Dark Knight kicks ass, but it is a problem, and one from which The Dark Knight Rises significantly does not suffer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonged Kiwi

Completely illogical, but there you have it.

Illogical or not, at least I know where you're coming from now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonged Kiwi

As to all the other "coincidences" etc, I can't really tell you why I bought them in the first two films, but not in the TDKR. During the first two, I can suspend my disbelief but not in the third.

And believe, I am very aware of the fact that it's a "Batman" movie, so I'm more than willing to make allowances and suspend my disbelief. But I just don't feel like TDKR helped me at all. Maybe it was partly that it was taking itself so seriously? I dunno.

[...]

You're absolutely right. I need to rewatch. Nolan's back catalogue has earned at least that much from me.

However, I didn't mean to give off a "nonchalant" vibe. It's not like I went in not expecting much and didn't pay attention. I wasn't quick coming to this conclusion about TDKR either. It's not like I left the theatre saying "Meh, that was shit. Forget it." I loved the first two and was looking forward to the third very, very much. I went in with high expectations (always dangerous) and was disappointed. I left the theatre feeling vaguely unsatisfied and it wasn't really until I thought back over the movie I noticed the inconsistencies etc more sharply.

We'll see how it holds up on future viewings.

You kind of sound like me after my first viewing. Despite my boundless love for it now, I didn't love it the first time I saw it. In fact, going back and reading what I had to say now, I disagree with myself pretty violently

Like you, my expectations were sky high, and the film initially failed to meet those expectations by necessity. However, once the initial encounter was behind me and I went back in a second time, all the great things I may have missed/downplayed really stood out as exceptional, while pretty much all of the sticking points started to fit together better to the point where, whenever I watch it now, I see a damn near flawless film with which I have very little problems, and what problems I have, they're very minor.

Nolan may not be Kubrick, but all the same, there's always a lot going on in his films, even straight-up action stuff like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, and I'm sure the latter will grow on you upon subsequent viewings. You may not be singing its praises like me, but I definitely think you'll appreciate it more than you do now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hug Dog

Wassup Bullitt! Good to see I still disagree with 90% of what you say!

__________________
"[We must] abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

"We are told that talent creates its own opportunities. Yet, it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but its own talents, as well."

Love seeing somebody else besides me singing praises for this one. And I can't stress Eric Roberts' greatness enough, he owns the shit out of this movie.

They took my thumb!

Quote:

Of course. That works out to 6 movies I owe you. I'd prefer you give me picks from the aqua action files, but I know better than to not expect at least one documentary

I think I'm actually gonna send ya an invite to Cinemageddon so I can make ya watch some good crazy stuff but ya I know right off the bat, action wise, I know I want you to watch Eastwood's The Rookie (which you still haven't seen right?) and James Glickenhaus's Shakedown with Peter Weller and Sam Elliott whipping some ass. And maybe Off Limits with Willem Dafoe and Gregory Hines but I dont know yet, I still gotsta figure!

Quote:

Hard to Kill is my least favorite film from Seagal's prime. It's too nice and safe for him. It's the closest to Arnie territory he ever came, and it just leaves a bad taste. That's not to say it doesn't have some seriously bad ass scenes and some hilariously quintessentially Seagalian shit, but it's just not worthy of the pantheon, IMO.

Nah I would agree with everything ya said. It's definitely #4 of the Golden Age but it does still have so much great goofy stuff: the hospital hitman unnecessarily punching the living shit out of the janitor when he should be chasing after Seagal, perhaps Seagal's best girly running moments, the fact William Sadler's character actually had ballet tickets, and of course "I'm gonna take you to the bank Senator Trent...TO THE BLOOD BANK."

Quote:

I am forever indebted and grateful to you for giving me the gift of that film.

I tried posting a picture of a smiling Anthony Edwards but this computer is being a piece of shit.

So unfortunately you must use your imagination.

__________________
"thats what i like about SOA, that dude is crazy. i have him beating Cain. Soa is just on different level of KO power" - Pem123

did you action geeks like Blown Away? i always thought that was a pretty good one.

What's the consensus on Phone Booth in here?

I actually didn't mind Phone Booth. But then again I was also like 14 or 15 when I saw it and have only caught parts since. Kiefer Sutherland has a creepy ass voice on the phone though. The stereotypical serial killer calling your house kind of voice.

Although I love Family Guy, I never watch American Dad. It's not bad, it just doesn't do it for me. I'll occasionally land on it while going through the channels, though, and I couldn't fucking believe my eyes when I saw this.

Not as good as the Seagal and Hepburn references in Family Guy, but major props for a Pope reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquamanpunch

I think I'm actually gonna send ya an invite to Cinemageddon

What's that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquamanpunch

I know right off the bat, action wise, I know I want you to watch Eastwood's The Rookie (which you still haven't seen right?)

Correct. That one's a go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquamanpunch

Shakedown with Peter Weller and Sam Elliott whipping some ass.

Already seen that one. For reference, here's an old conversation we had about your action list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquamanpunch

While we're at it I'll whore out (again) my old school action flick list complete with pics and stupid captions:

Seen almost all of them [...] In addition to The Rookie, Off Limits, and Eye of the Tiger, I also haven't seen Eastern Condors, Punisher: War Zone (seriously, aqua?), Extreme Prejudice (want to see this the most out of all the ones I've yet to see, Powers Boothe AND Nick Nolte?!?!), McBain (what the motherfuck is that movie?), Bulletproof, Cop (serious oversight there in terms of James Woods' filmography), F/X (looks like a typical aqua pick from the picture there), or Split Second.

FYI, I have since seen Cop, which was awesome, and Eye of the Tiger, which wasn't (still enjoyable, though). If you want something to work from, I personally am really keen on seeing The Rookie, Eastern Condors, Extreme Prejudice, and McBain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquamanpunch

Nah I would agree with everything ya said. It's definitely #4 of the Golden Age but it does still have so much great goofy stuff: the hospital hitman unnecessarily punching the living shit out of the janitor when he should be chasing after Seagal, perhaps Seagal's best girly running moments, the fact William Sadler's character actually had ballet tickets, and of course "I'm gonna take you to the bank Senator Trent...TO THE BLOOD BANK."

That sequence in the hospital is probably, from a cinematic perspective, the most masterful sequence in the entire Seagal canon, like Hitchcock level suspense there. But the rest of it is just a fucking mess. The beginning is retarded, Kelly LeBrock is beyond awful, the ending with Seagal's weird head games makes absolutely no sense, and then he doesn't even kill the main guy. There's just so much that's abundantly and atrociously wrong that it's almost like the movie's very existence in some sense validates all the hate directed at action movies in general and Seagal movies in particular. I understand why a lot of the (stupid) choices that were made got made, what with everyone (including Seagal) wanting to be very careful not to fuck up the follow-up film to the overnight sensation Seagal was with his out-of-left-field arrival in Above the Law (an unknown's debut action flick which was #4 at the box-office opening weekend), and in that respect, Hard to Kill was a great success (Seagal's first #1 box office hit) and was in a lot of ways the right move to make at the time, but as a necessary evil we have since moved past, I'd just as soon focus on the real treats in the Seagal filmography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquamanpunch

I tried posting a picture of a smiling Anthony Edwards but this computer is being a piece of shit.

So unfortunately you must use your imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

did you action geeks like Blown Away? i always thought that was a pretty good one.

That one and The Package have fused together in my mind. I could do with watching them both again. Never liked Jeff Bridges, though, so TLJ will have to be doing double time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

What's the consensus on Phone Booth in here?

Another one I don't remember very well, except that I didn't hate it.

__________________
"[We must] abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

"We are told that talent creates its own opportunities. Yet, it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but its own talents, as well."